Ed Meese and The Heritage Foundation..

[bobabode]

. are clueless and FOS in regards to the US Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

[Pio1980]

Actually the first and the 14th are engaged here as the exception to equal protection is religiously based

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Actually the first and the 14th are engaged here as the exception to equal protection is religiously based

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Sickening that this disgraced fossil from the Reagan era is making this specious 'states rights' argument at this late stage, eh Steve?

[Pukka Sahib]

While the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor struck down section 3 of DOMA defining marriage for purposes of federal policy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, it did not address the issue legal recognition as between the states. As Chief Justice Roberts observed in his dissenting opinion: “The Court does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their historic and essential authority to define the marital relation, may continue to utilize the traditional definition of marriage.” United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ____ (2013).

The Fourth Circuit decision upholding the Louisiana marriage law raises the issue states' rights. It should be noted that there is no express provision in the Constitution granting a person the right of marriage; not that the framers thought marriage unimportant, but rather it is a right retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and power reserved to the several states or to the people under the Tenth Amendment. Marriage is strictly a matter of state (not federal) law. Each state has the sovereign power to enact laws governing marriage. . See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”).

State laws, however, are subject to federal supremacy under Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution. In this regard, state marriage laws may not abridge a persons rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are explicit: ". . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The assertion that the Tenth Amendment sanctions the right of a state to enact and enforce laws in violation of these constitutional protections is specious; and certainly contrary to decisions of the United States Supreme Court binding as precedent. See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1974); and Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). In order for the Tenth Amendment argument to prevail, the Supreme Court would have to overturn these prior decisions; and that is not likely to happen.

[Pio1980]

It appears that the States' interest in marriage is mainly to enforce contracted responsibilities under the terms of a civil marriage and not much else. Civil marriages must satisfy the terms of the US Constitution and the BoR.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[merrylander]

Surely Article IV Section 1 Requires that each state must respect the laws of all other states?

Our marriage was civil (and we have been very civil with each other since) and it is most definitely recognized.

[Pukka Sahib]

Marriage is a three-party contract between two natural persons of legal capacity (that would exclude minors and incompetents, but not necessarily persons of the same sex) and the state, which acknowledges its consent to the marriage contract through the issuance of a license. Few persons realize that the state is a party to their marriage until they want to get divorced, which they consider a great inconvenience, not to mention the legal expense. However, the state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the incidents of the marriage, i.e., marital property rights, custody and care of minor children (whether born of the union or adopted), and obligations of support; which issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the several states based upon the parties’ residence or domicile.

[merrylander]

Tell me about it but at least the lawyers were quite reasonable.

So if tomorrow Maryland decided that it will not recognize civil marriages Florence and would suddenly become common law spouses?

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Sickening that this disgraced fossil from the Reagan era is making this specious 'states rights' argument at this late stage, eh Steve?

Another of the morons that got loaded into the Reagan Klown Kar with his admin. We well know for what "States Rights" was/is code phrase for, treat the BoR as a local yokel buffet to be cherry picked instead of as the law of the Land.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk